Panaji, 26th December, 2019 (Pausa 5,1941)
SERIES II No. 39
689
Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410
Reg. No. G-2/RNP/GOA/32/2018-20
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Department of Agriculture
Directorate of Agriculture
__
Corrigendum
No. 8/86/2019-20/D.Agri/1287
Read: 1) Order No. 8/86/2019-20/D.Agri/724 dated
23-08-2019.
In the above referred order the following may be
corrected:
1) In the second para the sentence may be read
as “The appointment is on regular basis”
instead of “The appointment is on officiating
basis”.
2) In the table the Budget Head of Sr. No. 2
Shri Deepak Gopinath Gadekar (OBC) may be
read as “2401-00-001-03(NP)-01” instead of
“2401-00-109-05(NP)-01”.
This supersedes corrigendum No. 8/86/2019-20/
/D.Agri/927 dated 14-10-2018.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Madhav B. Kelkar, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Agriculture).
Tonca-Caranzalem, 23rd December, 2019.
———uuu———
Department of Co-operation
Office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies
__
Order
No. 8-1/FISH/TS-II/SZ/2017/RCS/4343
Read: 1) Show Cause Notice No. 17-242-2006/ARSZ/
/FISHERIES/212 dated 21-04-2017.
2) This office Order No. 8/1/FISH/TS-II/SZ/
/2017/RCS/668 dated 19-05-2017 appointing
a Committee of Administrator in terms of
Section 67A(1) of the Goa Co-operative
Societies Act, 2001 to streamline the
affairs of the South Goa Mechanized Boat
Owners Co-op. & Marketing Society Ltd.,
Cutband, Velim, Salcete-Goa.
3) Letter No. SGMBOCMSL/COA/13 dated
20-11-2017 received from Chairman of
Committee of Administrator of the South
Goa Mechanized Boat Owners Co-op. &
Marketing Society Ltd., Cutband, Velim,
Salcete-Goa.
4) This office Order No. 8/1/FISH/TS-II/SZ/
/2017/RCS/3829
dated
29-12-2017
extending the term of Committee of
Administrator.
5) This office Order No. 8/1/FISH/TS-II/SZ/
/2017/RCS dated 04-06-2018 extending
the term of Committee of Administrator.
6) This office Order No. 8/1/FISH/TS-II/
/SZ/2017/RCS/3708 dated 24-12-2018
extending the term of Committee of
Administrator.
7) This office Order No. 8/1/FISH/TS-II/
/SZ/2017/RCS/2290 dated 16-07-2019
extending the term of Committee of
Administrator.
In exercise of powers vested in me under Section
67A(1) of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001,
I, Menino D’Souza, Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, Government of Goa, hereby extend the
term of Committee of Administrators appointed vide
Order referred at Sr. No. 2 hereinabove for another
period of 3 (three) months with effect from
23-11-2019 or till constitution of full fledged Board
of Directors with due process of law, whichever is
earlier.
Menino D’Souza, Registrar & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Co-op. Societies).
Panaji, 13th November, 2019.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 39
26TH DECEMBER, 2019
690
Department of Labour
—
Order
No. 28/36/2019-LAB/832
Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the
opinion that an industrial dispute exists between
M/s. Kadamba Transport Corporation Limited,
Paraise-de-Goa, near Tin Building, Porvorim, Goa,
and it’s workmen, Shri Martin Afonso and others,
represented by the Kadamba Kamgar Union, in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule
hereto (hereinafter referred to as the “said
dispute”);
And whereas, the Government of Goa
considers it expedient to refer the said
dispute for adjudication.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act
14 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the “said
Act”), the Government of Goa hereby refers the
said dispute for adjudication to the Industrial
Tribunal of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted under
Section 7A of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
“(1) Whether the action of M/s. Kadamba
Transport Corporation Limited, Paraise-
-de-Goa, near Tin Building, Porvorim, Goa, in
non-implementing the IInd financial
up-gradation under the Modified Assured
Carreer Progression Scheme (MACP) and
other consequential benefits to its workmen,
Shri Martin Afonso, Shri Raju B. Tuenkar,
Shri Prabhakar J. Tilve, Shri Santosh N. Naik
and Shri Uttam D. Naik, is legal and justified?
(2) If not, to what relief the workmen are
entitled?”.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 16th December, 2019.
________
Order
No. 28/4/2019-LAB/833
Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the
opinion that an industrial dispute exists between
the management of M/s. Agrawal Renewable
Energy Private Limited, Anand Bhavan, Old Station
Road, Margao, Goa and their workman, Shri Vinod
Gajanan Naik, Store Assistant, represented by the
Goa Trade and Commercial Workers’ Union, in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule
hereto (hereinafter referred to as the “said
dispute”);
And whereas, the Government of Goa
considers it expedient to refer the said
dispute for adjudication.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act
14 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the “said
Act”), the Government of Goa hereby refers the
said dispute for adjudication to the Industrial
Tribunal of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted under
Section 7A of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
“(1) Whether the severance of employer-employee
relationship between the management of
M/s. Agrawal Renewable Energy Private
Limited, Anand Bhavan, Old Station Road,
Margao, Goa, and Shri Vinod Gajanan Naik,
Store Assistant on account of refusal of
employment or otherwise, with effect from
08-04-2016, is legal and justified?
(2) If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled?”.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 16th December, 2019.
________
Notification
No. 28/2/2019-LAB/823
The following award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 06-11-2019 in Case
No. Ref. LC-II/IT/16/10 is hereby published as
required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 11th December, 2019.
______
IN THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. Ref. LC-II/IT/16/10
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 39
26TH DECEMBER, 2019
691
Shri Lavu Shirodkar,
H. No. 541, Mandur, Dongrim,
Fornawada,
Post, Netura, Goa.
… Workman/Party-I
V/s
M/s Garware Goa Nets Ltd.,
Corlim Industrial Estate,
Corlim-Goa.
… Employer/Party-II
Workman/Party-I represented by Adv. Shri A. V.
Nigalye.
Employer/Party-II represented by Adv. Shri P.
Chawdikar.
Panaji, Dated: 06-11-2019
AWARD
1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause
(d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947), the
Government of Goa, by Order dated 27-07-2010,
bearing No. 28/25/2010-LAB referred the following
dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal
of Goa. The Hon’ble Presiding Officer, Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in turn assigned the
present dispute to this Labour Court-II vide his
order dated 08-09-2010.
“(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s Garware Goa Nets Limited, Corlim
Industrial Estate, Corlim, Goa in refusing
employment to Shri Lavu Shirodkar, Senior
Operator, with effect from 17-11-2002, is legal
and justified?
(2) If not, what relief the Workman is entitled
to?”
2. On receipt of the reference, a case was
registered under No. LC-II/IT/16/10 and registered
A/D notice was issued to the Parties. In pursuance
to the said notice, the Parties put in their
appearance. The Workman/Party-I (for short
‘Workman’), filed his Statement of Claim on
28-01-2011 at Exb-4. The facts of the case in brief
as pleaded by the Workman are that the Employer/
/Party II (for short, ‘Employer’) is company
incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956
having its registered office and factory at Corlim
Industrial Estate, Corlim, Goa. He stated that he
was initially appointed as ‘Asst. Operator’ and
subsequently promoted as ‘Sr. Operator’. He stated
that he has put in a long and meritorious service
of over twelve years with the Employer.
3. He stated that by charge-sheet dated
10-07-2002, the Employer alleged false and frivolous
charges of misconduct against him. He stated that
it was alleged that he deliberately remained absent
on the dates mentioned therein. He stated that by
the said charge-sheet, he was informed that it has
been decided to hold an enquiry against him in
respect of the said charges. He stated that it was
also alleged that the enquiry will be conducted by
Mr. K. Parmeshwaran at Mumbai on 24-07-2002 at
2:30 p.m. He submitted that the Employer decided
to hold enquiry against him and appointed an
Enquiry Officer, without even seeking explanation
from him. He stated that since the registered office
of the Employer and its factory is located at Corlim
Industrial Estate, Corlim, Goa, the Employer could
have conveniently held the enquiry in its factory
or office premises or at any other place in Goa. He
stated that he had requested the Employer to hold
the enquiry in Goa. He stated that however he did
not receive any favourable reply from the Employer.
He stated that he could not travel to the distant
place at Mumbai due to poverty and paucity of
funds. He stated that he also could not arrange for
assistance in the enquiry. He stated that the
Enquiry Officer, who was the appointee of the
Employer, conducted the enquiry ex-parte in his
absence. He stated that thereafter the Enquiry
Officer submitted his findings dated 03-09-2002,
holding that the charges alleged in the charge-
-sheet are proved. He stated that thereafter, by
letter dated 17-11-2002, the Employer dismissed
him with immediate effect. He submitted that after
termination of his service, he raised an industrial
dispute with the Employer, demanding
reinstatement in service with full back wages. He
stated that he also sought intervention of the
Labour Commissioner, Government of Goa, which
ended in failure.
4. The Workman contended that the action of
the Employer in dismissing him from service is not
only illegal and unjustified, but also malafide and
done with ulterior motive. He submitted that his
services have been terminated by the Employer
without any reasonable cause and for no
misconduct committed by him. He submitted that
the charge-sheet dated 10-07-2002 is illegal and
the misconduct alleged in the said charge-sheet is
false and fictitious. He submitted that the action
of the Employer of appointing an Enquiry Officer
without even seeking an explanation from him,
fixing the date of enquiry and continuing with
enquiry without any reply to the charge-sheet from
him discloses the malafides of the Employer. He
submitted that the said action further shows that
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 39
26TH DECEMBER, 2019
692
the subsequent action of the Employer were
premeditated and the Employer had decided to
terminate his services, even before holding the
enquiry. He submitted that the action of the
Employer of holding the enquiry at Mumbai,
instead of holding in Goa, where the Employer has
its factory as well as its office, is illegal. He
submitted that the Employer was well aware that
he, due to his poverty, would not be able to travel
to Mumbai and participate in the enquiry and it
was for this reason that it held the enquiry in
Mumbai. He submitted that the further action of
the Employer of continuing to hold the enquiry at
Mumbai inspite of his request to hold it in Goa
further exhibits the evil designs and the malafide
intentions of the Employer. He submitted that by
holding the enquiry in Mumbai, the Employer
effectively denied the right of defence to him. He
submitted that the action of the Employer is in
total breach of the principles of natural justice and
fair play. He submitted that the Enquiry Officer,
who conducted the enquiry against him, was
biased in favour of the Employer and against him.
He submitted that the findings recorded by the
Enquiry Officer, whereby he held that the charges
of misconduct alleged against him are proved, are
illegal and deserves to be set aside. He submitted
that assuming that the enquiry held against him
and the findings of the Enquiry Officer are just and
legal, in that event the punishment of dismissal
awarded to him is extremely harsh and severe and
not proportionate to the offence. He therefore
submitted that the order of dismissal dated
17-11-2002 is therefore liable to be set aside. The
Workman therefore prayed for an Award holding
that the action of the Employer in refusing
employment to him w.e.f. 17-11-2002 is illegal and
unjustified and the Employer be directed to
reinstate him in service with continuity of service
and with all benefits and privileges attached to
his post.
5. The Employer disputed the claim of the
Workman by filing its Written Statement on
07-06-2011 at Exhibit-7. The Employer, as and by
way of preliminary objection, submitted that the
reference is null and void as there does not exists
an “Industrial Dispute” as defined u/s 2(k) of the
I.D. Act, 1947 and that the reference has been made
by the Government of Goa without any material on
record and without application of mind. The
Employer admitted that the Workman was
employed with them as ‘Sr. Operator’. The Employer
stated that the attendance record of the Workman
is fraught with absenteeism. The Employer stated
that the Workman was issued a charge-sheet dated
10-07-2002. The Employer stated that the Workman
was informed that they have decided to hold an
enquiry against him in respect of the said charges.
The Employer stated that it was also informed to
the Workman that the enquiry will be conducted
at Mumbai. The Employer admitted that the
Workman requested them to hold the enquiry in
Goa, however denied that he did not receive any
favourable reply from them as alleged. The
Employer stated that the Workman was informed
that it is not obligatory on their part to arrange the
enquiry in Goa. The Employer stated that the
Workman was informed in the charge-sheet itself
issued to him that he will be reimbursed to and fro
second class railway fare from Goa to the venue of
the enquiry as per his grade on the scheduled date
of enquiry. The Employer stated that the Workman
never showed any interest in performing his duties
entrusted to him by his superiors and he used to
always remain absent from his duties.
6. The Employer stated that an independent
Enquiry Officer Mr. K. Parmeshwaran was
appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct the
enquiry with respect to the said charge-sheet. The
Employer stated that the Enquiry Officer conducted
the enquiry in a fair, proper and impartial manner.
The Employer submitted that every opportunity
was given to the Workman to defend the charges
leveled against him. The Employer submitted that
the Workman has however failed to avail the said
opportunities. The Employer submitted that the
Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry ex-parte in
the absence of the Workman after giving him
sufficient opportunities. The Employer stated that
the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings dated
03-09-2002 and after appreciating the facts of the
case, held the Workman guilty of the charges
leveled against him by the Employer.
7. The Employer submitted that they considered
the proceedings of the enquiry; the findings of the
Enquiry Officer dated 03-09-2002 and concurred
with the same. The Employer stated that they
considered the past record of the Workman. The
Employer stated that they did not find any
extenuating circumstances. The Employer stated
that considering the gravity of the proved
misconduct, they decided to dismiss the Workman
from the service. The Employer stated that the
Workman was accordingly served with a dismissal
letter dated 21-09-2002 dismissing him from service.
8. The Employer admitted that after termination
of the services of the Workman, he raised an
Industrial dispute with them demanding
reinstatement in service with full back wages. The
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 39
26TH DECEMBER, 2019
693
Employer also admitted that the Workman
also sought the intervention of the Labour
Commissioner, Government of Goa. The Employer
admitted that the conciliation officer appointed
u/s 4 of the I.D Act, 1947 held conciliation
proceedings in the matter. The Employer admitted
that the said proceedings ended in failure. The
Employer submitted that the ground mentioned in
para 10 (a) to (k) of the Claim statement are false
and cannot be considered under the facts and
circumstances of the present matter. The Employer
submitted that the punishment of dismissal
awarded to the Workman is just and proportionate,
considering the proved misconduct and past record
of the Workman. The Employer submitted that its
action in dismissing the Workman from service is
legal, just and proper and therefore the Workman
is not entitled to any relief as claimed.
9. The Employer stated that the Workman is
gainfully employed from the date of dismissal till
date and as such no hardship is caused to the
Workman. The Employer submitted that the
Workman has accepted his gratuity by duly signing
the settlement before the Labour Commissioner.
The Employer submitted that the Workman never
showed his insistence for his reinstatement during
the said proceedings and in fact has willingly
accepted the gratuity payment. The Employer
submitted that reinstatement is nothing but a mere
afterthought with malafide intention, especially
since after settlement before the Labour
Commissioner, the Workman has accepted gratuity
as a full and final settlement of his dues.
10. The Employer submitted that in the event,
this Hon’ble Court set aside the enquiry on any of
the ground they may be permitted to lead a fresh
evidence before this court to prove the charges.
The Employer stated that in view of escalating and
continuing losses, they closed the manufacturing
operations of their unit located at plot No. 2, Corlim
Industrial Estate on 16-06-2012 by informing
G.I.D.C., Patto, Panaji-Goa, vide their letter dated
10-07-2012. The Employer stated that in view of
closure, they have withdrawn their application for
registration with Director of Industries, Trade and
Commerce and as such there will be no registration
certificate. The Employer stated that vide
memorandum of settlement dated 14-06-2012 in the
office of Commissioner of Labour retrenched all
their sixty-three workmen on their roll. The
Employer therefore prayed for dismissal of the
present reference issued by the Government of Goa.
The Employer denied the overall case of the
Workman as pleaded in his statement of claim and
prayed for dismissal of the present reference issued
by the Government of Goa.
11. Thereafter, the Workman filed his Re-joinder
on 12-07-2011 at Exb.-8. The Workman, by way of
his Re-joinder, confirms and reiterates all the
submissions and averments made by him in his
claim statement to be true and correct and denies
all the statements and averments made by the
Employer in the Written Statement which are
contrary to the statements and averments made by
him.
12. Based on the pleadings filed by the
respective Parties in the present proceedings, this
Hon’ble Court framed certain issues on 09-08-2011
at Exhibit-9. Among the said issues, the following
Issue No. 1 and 2 were treated as Preliminary Issues.
1. Whether a fair and proper enquiry was
conducted against the Workman/Party-I?
2. Whether the charges of misconduct leveled
against the Workman/Party I vide charge-
-sheet dated 10-07-2002 are proved to the
satisfaction of this Court by acceptable
evidence?
3. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that
the action of the Employer/Party II in
refusing employment to him w.e.f.
17-11-2002 is illegal and unjustified?
4. Whether the Employer/Party II proves that
the present order of reference is null and
void in view of the preliminary objections
raised by them in para (i) and (ii) of their
written statement?
5. Whether the Workman/Party I is entitled to
any relief?
6. What Order? What Award?
13. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as
under:
(a) Issue No. 1
:
In the Negative.
(b) Issue No. 2
:
In the Negative.
(c) Issue No. 3
:
In the Affirmative.
(d) Issue No. 4
:
In the Negative.
(e) Issue No. 5 & 6
:
As per final order.
I have heard the oral arguments of Ld. Adv. Shri
A. V. Nigalye, appearing for the Workman as well
as Ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar, appearing for the
Employer.
14. Ld. Adv. Shri A.V. Nigalye, appearing for the
Workman, during the course of his oral arguments,
submitted that the Workman was employed with
the Employer as ‘Senior Operator’. He submitted
that the Workman was initially appointed as ‘Asstt.
Operator’ and subsequently promoted as ‘Senior
Operator’. He submitted that vide order dated
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 39
26TH DECEMBER, 2019
694
26-02-2014 passed by this Hon’ble Court in its
findings on preliminary issue No. 1 and 2 held that
no fair and proper enquiry has been conducted
against the workman in respect of the charge-sheet
dated 10-07-2002 and therefore the enquiry
conducted against the workman is quashed and
set aside. He submitted that the Employer led its
evidence before this Hon’ble Court by examining
two witnesses, namely, Shri Anant G. Devlekar and
Shri Ashok Patwardhan to prove the charges of
misconduct levelled against the workman, vide
charge-sheet dated 10-07-2002. He submitted that
the oral evidence adduced by the Employer
through its aforesaid witnesses is contrary to the
documentary evidence on record. He submitted
that the witness of the Employer, Shri Ashok
Patwardhan indicates that he was not having any
authority to depose in the present matter and that
as an Accounts Officer of the Employer his duties
were related to the accounts of the Employer
Company. He submitted that both the said
witnesses admitted that the Employer used to
make late payment quiet often to the workers in
the year 2001 and 2002 and that the said delayed
payment used to go for 25 days. He submitted that
both the said witnesses admitted that the workers
used to face financial difficulties due to delay in
making payments to them. He submitted that the
second witness of the Employer deposed that he
do not know as to who was maintaining the
attendance record in the year 2001 and 2002 in the
Employer Company and that he is unable to tell as
to who was supervising the said person
maintaining the attendance record during the said
period. He submitted that the second witness of
the Employer admitted that the said absence of
leave of the workman were condoned by his
superiors from time to time. He submitted that the
second witness of the Employer deposed that at
present he do not possess any record in writing in
support of his statement made in para 7 of his
affidavit in evidence, wherein the workman have
been shown as absent from November, 2001 till
April, 2002 for a total period of 71.5 days. He
therefore submitted that the Employer has failed
to prove the charges of misconduct as stated in
the charge-sheet dated 10-07-2002 issued to him.
He submitted that the termination of services of
the Workman by the Employer w.e.f. 17-11-2002 is
illegal and unjustified. He submitted that without
prejudice to his aforesaid contention, the
punishment of dismissal from service issued to the
Workman is too severe and disproportionate to the
proved misconduct. He submitted that after
termination of services of the workman, he has
been unemployed. He submitted that the workman
has made efforts to secure gainful employment,
however, he could not succeed. He submitted that
the Employer has closed its factory w.e.f.
16-06-2012. He therefore submitted that he is
entitled for full back wages.
15. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar,
representing the Employer, during the course of
his oral arguments, submitted that by order dated
26-02-2014, passed on the findings on the
preliminary issue No. 1 and 2, this Hon’ble Court
quashed and set aside the enquiry held against
the Workman in respect of charge-sheet dated
10-07-2002 being unfair and improper. He
submitted that the Employer therefore led
independent evidence oral as well as documentary
by examining two witnesses, namely, Shri Anant
G. Devlekar and Shri Ashok Patwardhan. He
submitted that the oral as well as documentary
evidence led by the Employer through its aforesaid
witnesses proved the charges of misconduct
levelled against the workman, vide charge-sheet
dated 10-07-2002. He submitted that the said oral
as well as documentary evidence on record clearly
indicates that the Workman had remained absent
unauthorizedly for 71.5 days for the period from
September, 2001 till April, 2002 as spelt out in the
charge-sheet issued to him. He submitted that the
said evidence on record clearly proves the
misconduct of habitual absence without leave etc.
as spelt out in the charge-sheet. He therefore
submitted that the refusal of employment to the
Workman is just, fair and legal and the Workman is
therefore not entitled to any relief. He submitted
that punishment of dismissal is proportionate to
the proved misconduct. Without prejudice to his
aforesaid submission, he submitted that the
Employer has produced on record oral as well as
documentary evidence pertaining to the closure of
its factory w.e.f. 16-06-2012. He submitted that the
Employer also produced on record a memorandum
of settlement dated 14-06-2012 signed with its
employees union and a compact disc showing the
gainful employment of the Workman.
I have carefully perused the entire records of
the present case. I have also carefully considered
the oral submissions advanced by Ld. Adv. Shri P.
Chawdikar appearing for the Employer.
16. Issue No. 1 and 2:
Vide order dated 26-02-2014, passed in my
finding on the preliminary issue No. 1 and 2, I have
come to the conclusion and held that no fair and
proper enquiry has been conducted against the
Workman in respect of the charge-sheet dated
10-07-2002 and that the enquiry conducted against
the Workman is quashed and set aside.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 39
26TH DECEMBER, 2019
695
17. Issue No. 3:
As the enquiry was quashed and set aside, the
Employer chose to lead independent evidence on
the floor of this court by examining two witnesses
to prove the charges of misconduct as spelt out in
the charge-sheet dated 10-07-2002, issued to the
Workman.
The first witness of the Workman, Shri Anant G.
Devlekar in his affidavit in evidence on record,
deposed that he is working with the Employer as
Administrative Manager, handling day to day
working of administrative department such as
salary, leave records, attendance etc. of workmen
of the Employer Company. The said witness in
para 9 of his affidavit-in-evidence deposed that the
Workman remained absent from September, 2001
to April, 2002 for total 71.5 days (being September,
2001- 08 days, November, 2001–15. 5 days, December,
2001-15.5 days, February, 2002–06 days, March,
2002-12.5 days and April, 2002–14 days) and also
produced on record copies of extract of muster roll
for the period starting from September, 2001 to
April, 2002 (Exb. 22-colly). He deposed that inspite
of repeated warnings, caution etc., the Workman
did not improve in his attendance and deliberately
remained absent from work. He deposed that the
Workman frequently remained absent unauthorizedly
without any satisfactory explanation and without
any proper justification. He deposed that due to
such acts on behalf of the workman, the Employer
had suffered production loss.
18. He was cross-examined by Ld. Adv. Shri A.
V. Nigalye, appearing for the Workman. In his cross-
examination, Shri Devlekar admitted that in his
earlier affidavit-in-evidence filed in the present
proceedings, he deposed that he is presently
designated as consultant. He deposed that in the
present affidavit in evidence, he deposed that he
was working with the Employer as Administrative
Manager. The witness further deposed that he was
Administrative Manager prior to the year 2013. The
witness finally admitted that presently, he is not
working as Administrative Manager with the
Employer Company and that his statement made
in para 1 of his affidavit in evidence is incorrect
statement. He admitted that in the year 2001, he
was not posted in any of the branch of the Employer
in Goa and that one Mr. Desai was posted at Goa
branch of the Employer as its Manager in the year
2001 and 2002, however, he do not remember his
first name. He deposed that he do not remember
the name of the person as well as his designation,
who was entrusted with the work of maintaining
the muster roll in the year 2001 and 2002 by the
Employer at its Corlim branch. He deposed that he
do not identify the hand-writing appearing on the
muster roll at Exb.22-colly. He deposed that apart
from the muster roll, the Employer do not have any
other records pertaining to the attendance of the
Workman. He deposed that he do not recollect as
to whether the Employer used to obtain the
signature of its workers or maintaining punching
card system to mark the attendance of its workers.
He admitted that the contents of para 9 of his
affidavit in evidence do not match with the muster
roll at Exb. 22-colly. He deposed that the aforesaid
mistake has been made by the clerk appointed by
the Employer, however, he do not know his name.
He deposed that at the time of preparing the charge-
-sheet, he had not seen the muster roll maintained
by the Employer, wherein the attendance of the
Workman has been marked. He deposed that he do
not remember as to who had prepared the said
charge-sheet against the Workman. He admitted
that in his earlier cross-examination, in the present
matter, he has deposed that sometimes the
Workman used to remain absent on medical
grounds and subsequently, he used to submit the
medical certificate. He admitted that there was
delay in payment of wages to the workers of the
Employer at the relevant time i.e. from September,
2001 to April, 2002. He deposed that the Workman
used to travel from his native place at Mandur,
Dongrim, Tiswadi, Goa to the factory of the
Employer to report for his duties, which is around
15 kms. away from the factory of the Employer. He
deposed that he do not know as to whether due to
delay in payment of wages of the Workman, he
used to find difficult to travel by bus from his place
of residence to the factory of the Employer. He
admitted that because of delay in payment of wages
of the workers, there was consequential delay in
payment of ESI contribution of the workers. He
deposed that he do not know as to whether because
of unavailability of ESI facility, the Workman was
compelled to approach the private doctor for
medical treatment of himself as well as of his family
members at the relevant time. He deposed that
delay in payment of wages affected the attendance
of the Workman. He deposed that he is not aware
as to whether whenever the Workman used to
remain absent, he used to intimate to the
management of the Employer about his absenteeism
either by telephonically or otherwise. He deposed
that he do not know as to whether the Workman
used to remain absent hardly for one or two days
in a month and that contents of para 9 of his
affidavit in evidence is false.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 39
26TH DECEMBER, 2019
696
Thus, the aforesaid oral as well as documentary
evidence led by the Employer through its witness
Shri Anant Devlekar is full of contradictions. The
testimony of the said first witness of the Employer
Shri Devlekar has been shaken and as such could
not be believed.
19. The second witness of the Employer, namely,
Shri Ashok Patwardhan filed his affidavit in
evidence and also produced on record certain
documents. The said affidavit in evidence of the
Employer’s witness, Shri Ashok Patwardhan namely
two compact discs (Exb. 40), copy of letter of the
Employer dated 10-07-2012 (Exb. 41) and copy of
memorandum of settlement dated 14-06-2012
(Exb. 42). The contents of affidavit-in-evidence of
both the witnesses of the Employer are more or
less same. More so ever, Shri Patwardhan, in
para 6 of his affidavit in evidence deposed that
71.5 days of unauthorized absence of the Workman,
similar to the deposition of para 9 of the first witness
of the Employer Shri Devlekar. The said para 6 of
affidavit in evidence of the said witness of the
Employer do not match with the copies of extract
of muster roll on record at Exb. 22-colly and as
such differs from each other. Hence, I am not
inclined to give any weightage to the said oral
evidence of Shri Ashok Patwardhan.
20. On the contrary, the evidence on record
indicates that the Workman was in the employment
of the Employer for over 12 years till he was
dismissed from service w.e.f. 17-11-2002. The
Workman was initially appointed as Asstt. Operator
and subsequently promoted as ‘Senior Operator’.
The Employer also failed to produce on record any
memo, show-cause notices, warning letters, charge-
-sheets etc. issued to the Workman in the past in
his long term service with them. The second
witness of the Employer Shri Patwardhan admitted
that at the relevant time, there was delay in
payment of wages to the workers. The said witness
of the Employer also admitted that the Workman
used to remain absent on medical ground and
subsequently, he used to submit the medical
certificate. In view of above, it is held that the
Employer also failed to prove any of the charges of
misconduct as spelt out in the charge-sheet dated
10-07-2002, issued to the Workman, either by
holding a fair and proper enquiry in accordance
with principles of natural justice or also on the
floor of this court. In the absence of any proved
misconduct on the part of the Workman, it is held
that the action of the Employer in refusing
employment to the Workman w.e.f. 17-11-2002 is
illegal and unjustified. The issue No. 3 is therefore
answered in the affirmative.
21. Issue No. 4:
The Employer, as and by way of its preliminary
objections, filed in the written statement, submitted
that the reference is null and void as there is no
industrial dispute exists as defined u/s 2 (k) of the
I.D. Act, 1947 and that the reference has been made
by the Government of Goa, without any material
on record, in haste and without application of mind.
The burden to prove the aforesaid issue is therefore
on the Employer. The Employer has however, failed
to bring on record any material evidence in support
of the aforesaid issue. Even otherwise, in the case
in hand, it is not in dispute that the Party I is a
‘workman’ within the meaning of Section 2(s) of
the I.D. Act, 1947. It is also not in dispute that the
Party II Company is an ‘Employer’ within the
meaning of Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act, 1947. Hence,
the present dispute raised by the workman against
the Employer pertaining to his non-employment is
an ‘industrial dispute’ within the meaning of
Section 2(k) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and as such this
court has every jurisdiction to adjudicate the
present reference. Consequently, the Employer
failed to prove its allegations that the reference is
bad-in-law for any reasons as there is no industrial
dispute exists as defined u/s 2 (k) of the I.D. Act,
1947 and that the reference has been made by the
Government of Goa without any material on record,
in haste and without application of mind. The issue
No. 4 is therefore answered in the negative.
22. Issue No. 5:
While deciding the issue No. 3 hereinabove,
I have discussed and come to the conclusion that
the action of the Employer in refusing employment
to the Workman w.e.f. 17-11-2002 is illegal and
unjustified. The evidence on record indicates that
the Workman was initially appointed as Asstt.
Operator and subsequently promoted as Senior
Operator. The evidence on record indicates that
the Employer has permanently closed its Corlim
unit w.e.f. 16-06-2012 due to unavoidable and
unforeseen circumstances and withdrawn its
application for registration with the Director of
Industries, Trade and Commerce, vide its letter
dated 10-07-2012 (Exb.41). The Workman is
therefore not entitled for any reinstatement in the
service of the Employer.
23. In the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase
v/s. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.
ED.) and Ors., reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324, the
Hon’ble Apex Court has held that if the order of
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 39
26TH DECEMBER, 2019
697
termination is void ab initio, the Workman is
entitled to full back wages. The relevant para of
the decision is extracted hereunder:
“22. The very idea of restoring an employee to
the position which he held before dismissal or
removal or termination of service implies that
the employee will be put in the same position
in which he would have been but for the illegal
action taken by the employer. The injury
suffered by a person, who is dismissed or
removed or is otherwise terminated from service
cannot easily be measured in terms of money.
With the passing of an order which has the
effect of severing the employer–employee
relationship, the latter’s source of income gets
dried up. Not only the concerned employee,
but his entire family suffers grave adversities.
They are deprived of the source of sustenance.
The children are deprived of nutritious food
and all opportunities of education and
advancement in life. At times, the family has to
borrow from the relatives and other
acquaintance to avoid starvation. These
sufferings continue till the competent
adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of
the action taken by the employer. The
reinstatement of such an employee, which is
preceded by a finding of the competent
judicial/quasi-judicial body or court that the
action taken by the employer is ultra vires the
relevant statutory provisions or the principles
of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim
full back wages. If the employer wants to deny
back wages to the employee or contest his
entitlement to get consequential benefits, then
it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove
that during the intervening period the
employee was gainfully employed and was
getting the same emoluments. Denial of back
wages to an employee, who has suffered due
to an illegal act of the employer would amount
to indirectly punishing the concerned employee
and rewarding the employer by relieving him
of the obligation to pay back wages including
the emoluments.”
24. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court is well recognized and is also applicable to
the case in hand. In the case in hand, the Workman
was in the employment of the Employer for over 12
years till he was illegally dismissed from service
w.e.f. 17-11-2002. The driving license issued by the
Directorate of Transport at Exb.45-cross indicates
that his date of birth is 30-06-1961. This implies
that his age on the date of dismissal i.e. on
17-11-2002 was over 41 years. The Workman
pleaded and also stated on oath that he is
unemployed from the date of his termination till
date and that he has made efforts to secure gainful
employment. However, he has not been successful
because he was dismissed employee. He deposed
that his family owns an Innova car bearing
registration No. GA-07-F-2592, which was
purchased by his family as tourist taxi in his name.
25. In his cross-examination, the Workman
deposed that his educational qualification is
standard Xth failed in English medium. He deposed
that his family purchased the said Innova car in
the year 2012 for an amount of Rs. 11,50,000/- by
obtaining a loan of Rs. 9,00,000/- and that they
were paying loan instalment of Rs. 17,500/- p.m. He
deposed that on an average his gross income was
Rs. 15000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month from hiring
the said vehicle. He deposed that he is married
person having one daughter of 15 years old,
studying in IXth standard. He deposed that his
wife is house wife and that he spent around
Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 3000/- on household expenses. The
compact disc produced by the Employer on record
at Exb. 40, is not supported by a certificate of a
responsible official. There is no corroborative
evidence to support the compact disc. Taking into
consideration the relevant factors, a lump sum
amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only)
be paid to the workman, in order to meet the ends
of justice.
In view of the above, I proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
1. It is held that the action of M/s Garware
Goa Nets Limited, Corlim Industrial Estate,
Corlim, Goa in refusing employment to Shri
Lavu Shirodkar, Operator with effect from
17-11-2002, is illegal and unjustified.
2. The Employer, M/s. Garware Goa Nets
Limited, Corlim, Industrial Estate, Corlim,
Goa is hereby directed to pay to the
Workman, Shri Lavu Shirodkara sum of
Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs only)
within a period of two months from the date
of passing the present order.
3. No order as to costs.
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar)
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 39
26TH DECEMBER, 2019
698
Notification
No. 28/2/2019-LAB/824
The following award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 18-11-2019 in Case
No. Ref. IT/18/2010 is hereby published as required
under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(Central Act 14 of 1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 11th December, 2019.
______
LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. Ref. IT/18/2010
Shri Vishnu Gawade,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Goa Trade and Commercial
Workers Union,
Velho Bldg., Panaji-Goa.
… Workman/Party I
V/s
M/s. G.K.B. Vision Ltd.,
Plot No. 27 and 28,
Pilerne Industrial Estate,
Pilerne, Bardez-Goa.
… Employer/Party II
Workman/Party I represented by Adv. Shri Suhas
Naik.
Employer/Party II represented by Adv. Shri A.V.
Nigalye.
Panaji, Dated: 18-11-2019.
AWARD
1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause
(d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947), the
Government of Goa, by Order dated 10-05-2010,
bearing No. 28-15-2010-LAB, referred the following
dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal
of Goa. The Government of Goa, vide its another
order dated 09-02-2016, transferred the present
dispute to this Labour Court-II, Panaji, Goa.
“(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s. GKB Vision Limited, Pilerne Industrial
Estate, Pilerne, Bardez, Goa, in dismissing
the service of its Workman, Shri Vishnu
Gawade, with effect from 24-12-2008, is legal
and justified?
(2) If not, what relief the Workman is entitled
to?”
2. On receipt of the reference, a case was
registered under No. IT/18/10 and registered
A/D notice was issued to the Parties. In pursuance
to the said notice, the Parties put in their
appearance. The Workman/Party-I (for short
‘Workman’), filed his statement of claim on
17-09-2010 at Exb-3. The facts of the case in brief
as pleaded by the Workman are that he was
employed in the workshop dept. as ‘Lathe Operator’
by the Employer/Party II (for short, ‘Employer’). He
stated that he was issued a charge-sheet dated
27-08-2007 alleging certain acts of misconducts.
He stated that he filed his reply to the said charge-
-sheet denying each and every allegations.
3. He stated that however, the Employer went
ahead to conduct the enquiry against him. He
stated that an enquiry was setup against him by
the Employer by appointing Adv. Shri A.M.
Gaikwad as an Enquiry Officer to investigate into
the acts of misconduct. He stated that he was
represented by an office bearer of the union. On
the contrary, the management was represented by
Adv. A. Nigalye. He stated that after conclusion of
the enquiry, Ld. Enquiry Officer submitted his
findings dated 09-12-2008 to the Employer. He
stated that thereafter, the Employer dismissed him
from its service vide its order dated 24-12-2008
with immediate effect. He submitted that being
aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 24-12-2018,
he raised an industrial dispute before the office of
the Labour Commissioner, vide his letter dated
29-01-2009 demanding immediate reinstatement
with full back wages and continuity in service,
which ended in failure.
4. The Workman contended that the Enquiry
Officer never considered the objection raised by
him and his representative in the said enquiry. He
submitted that the Enquiry Officer arbitrarily and
mechanically overruled his written objections and
totally acted in a biased and prejudicial manner in
favour of the Employer. He submitted that the
findings given by the Enquiry Officer are non-
reasoned findings in a mechanical manner without
proper reasoning in favour of the management. He
submitted that no charge levelled against him in
the charge-sheet dated 27-08-2007 have been
proved beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted
that the findings given by the Enquiry Officer are
perverse and are liable to be set aside and
quashed. He submitted that the Enquiry Officer
has acted as a mere agent of the management,
who made a farce of enquiry and conducted the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 39
26TH DECEMBER, 2019
699
enquiry in a flagrant violations of the principles of
natural justice and completed the said enquiry with
undue haste with biased and prejudicial mind in
favour of the management. He submitted that he
disputes and challenges the entire enquiry
proceedings conducted by the Enquiry Officer in
respect of charge-sheet dated 27-08-2007. He
submitted that the Enquiry Officer has committed
gross error of non-application of mind and in
favouring the management by stretching evidence
in favour of the management. He submitted that
the Enquiry Officer has failed to discuss and
analyze the evidence as well as material of the
defense and merely stated that the misconduct
levelled against him stands proved. He submitted
that no reason of whatsoever nature has been given
by the Enquiry Officer for not considering the
evidence of the defense. He submitted that the
witnesses examined by the management are
managerial and supervisory staff and as such their
testimony cannot be believed. He submitted that
none of the workmen or co-worker has been
examined by the management as its witness to
prove their case. He submitted that the findings
given by the Enquiry Officer are not based on
evidence on record and that there is no direct
evidence against him. He submitted that his
dismissal from service smacks of malafides
intended to take revenge on him for his legitimate
trade union activities and for being an office bearer
of the union. He submitted that after termination
of his services, the management has recruited new
workmen at his factory. He therefore submitted
that his dismissal from service is illegal, unjust,
bad-in-law and therefore entitled for immediate
reinstatement with full back wages and continuity
in service.
Without prejudice to his aforesaid contentions,
he submitted that the punishment meted out to
him of dismissal from service is too harsh and
disproportionate considering the nature of
allegations leveled against him without admitting
that the allegations are proved in the enquiry. He
stated that he is presently unemployed and does
not have any source of income. The Workman
therefore prayed that the action of the Employer in
dismissing him from service w.e.f. 24-12-2008 be
held as illegal, unjustified and bad-in-law and he
be reinstated in service with full back wages,
continuity in service and all other consequential
benefits thereof.
5. The Employer resisted the claim of the
Workman by filing its written statement on
11-10-2010 at Exb.5. The Employer, as and by way
of its preliminary objections, submitted that the
dispute raised by the Workman is without merits
and as such the reference is liable to be rejected.
The Employer submitted that the Goa Trade
and Commercial Workers Union on whose
representation the purported dispute is referred to
this Hon’ble Tribunal has no authority and locus
standi to represent the Workman and to espouse
the dispute on his behalf.
6. The Employer stated that it is a Company
incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956,
having its registered office at Pilerne Industrial
Estate, Pilerne, Bardez, Goa. The Employer stated
that it has a factory, wherein it is engaged in the
manufacture of ophthalmic lenses. The Employer
stated that it is an export oriented unit in terms of
manufacturing license issued to it and it has to
carry out its operations in strict compliance with
the said manufacturing license.
7. The Employer admitted that the Workman
under reference has been employed by them in its
factory for manufacturing activities. The Employer
stated that on 22-08-2007, the Workman was posted
in a section of the factory known as progressive
department. The Employer stated that at about
8.14 hours on the said date, the Workman left his
workplace in the progressive department without
permission of his superiors. The Employer stated
that thereafter, he and other three workmen led
around 38 workers and barged in the office of its
General Manager, Mr. R.A. Prabhu without any
permission and gheroed him. The Employer stated
that he alongwith other three workmen, Shri
Kishore Tuyenkar, Surendra Tuyenkar and Shri
Santosh Parab were the leaders of the mob. The
Employer stated that he remained in the office of
the General Manager for over 15 minutes
abandoning the work allotted to him. The Employer
stated that the aforesaid acts being serious acts of
misconduct, a charge-sheet was served on the
Workman detailing the said charges. The Employer
stated that the Workman was therefore charged as
follows “14 (3) (c): Willful damage to or loss of
employers goods or property,14 (3) (h): Riotous or
disorderly behaviour during working hours at the
establishment or any act subversive of discipline”.
The Employer stated that the Workman was
required to show-cause as to why the disciplinary
action is not be taken against him for the aforesaid
misconducts. The Employer stated that the
Workman submitted his reply dated 28-08-2007 to
the said charge-sheet. The Employer stated that
the explanation given by the Workman by the said
reply was not found to be satisfactory.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 39
26TH DECEMBER, 2019
700
8. The Employer stated that thereafter a joint
domestic enquiry was held into the charge-sheet
issued to the Workman and the other three
workmen by appointing Shri A. M. Gaikwad. The
Employer stated that all the four workmen
participated in the enquiry. The Employer stated
that during the course of enquiry, Shri Santosh
Parab left the services. The Employer stated that
the Workman and the other two Workman were
represented in the enquiry by an office bearer of
the union, Shri Suhas Naik. The Employer stated
that their representative cross-examined
management witnesses and the Workman also
produced his own evidence. The Employer stated
that full opportunity was given to the Workman to
defend himself and the enquiry was held in
compliance with the principles of natural justice
and fair play. The Employer stated that on
conclusion of the evidence, the Enquiry Officer
submitted his findings dated 08-12-2008, wherein
he held that the charges “riotous or disorderly
behaviour during working hours at the
establishment or any act subversive of discipline”
is proved against the Workman and Shri Kishore
Tuyenkar and Shri Surendra Tuyenkar.
9. The Employer stated that by show-cause
notice dated 10-12-2008, a copy of the said findings
was made available to the Workman and he was
required to show-cause as to why the said findings
should not be accepted. The Employer stated that
by letter dated 16-12-2008, the Workman sought
time for four weeks to submit his explanation to
the show-cause notice. The Employer stated that
by another show cause notice dated 18-12-2008
signed by its director, Shri Gaurav Gupta, they
informed the Workman that his request for granting
time to submit his reply is rejected and that further
informed him that he has accepted the findings of
the Enquiry Officer dated 09-12-2008. The Employer
stated that by the said show-cause notice, the
Workman was informed that Shri Gaurav Gupta
has come to the tentative conclusion to award the
penalty of dismissal from service to the Workman
and he was given an opportunity on the proposed
penalty to make his representation on the proposed
penalty within four days from the date of receipt
of the said notice. The Employer stated that the
Workman submitted his reply to the said show
cause notice by his letter dated 22-12-2008. The
Employer stated that as the said reply was not
found to be satisfactory, the Employer dismissed
the Workman from service with immediate effect
by order dated 24-12-2008.
10. The Employer submitted that the dismissal
of the Workman from service is just and legal as
the Workman was involved in a very serious
misconduct of leading the workers and gheroaing
its General Manager. The Employer submitted that
the principles of natural justice were duly complied
with in the enquiry wherein the Workman was
represented by an office bearer of a trade union.
The Employer submitted that the findings of the
Enquiry Officer are based on the evidence and
material on record of the enquiry proceedings. The
Employer submitted that the said findings are
perfectly fair and proper. The Employer submitted
that the charges of misconduct proved against the
Workman are very grave and serious and such acts
deserves the penalty of dismissal from service. The
Employer therefore submitted that its action in
dismissing the Workman from service is therefore
perfectly legal and justified.
Without prejudice to its contention, the
Employer submitted that in the event this Hon’ble
Tribunal holds for any reason whatsoever that the
said enquiry is not fair and proper or the findings
of the Enquiry Officer are not legal or not based on
evidence on record, they may be given an
opportunity to substitute the charges of
misconduct alleged against the Workman by
producing appropriate evidence in this Hon’ble
Tribunal. The Employer denied the overall case as
pleaded by the Workman and prayed for dismissal
of the present reference.
11. Thereafter, the Workman filed his rejoinder
on 15-04-2011 at Exb.8. The Workman, by way of
his Re-joinder, confirms and reiterates all the
submissions and averments made by him in his
claim statement to be true and correct and denies
all the statements and averments made by the
Employer in the Written Statement, which are
contrary to the statements and averments made by
him.
12. Based on the pleadings filed by the
respective parties, this court framed the following
issues on 11-03-2011 at Exb. 6.
1. Whether the Party-I/Union proves that the
enquiry was not fair and proper?
2. Whether the charges levelled against the
Workman are proved to the satisfaction of
the Tribunal by acceptable evidence?
3. Whether the Party-I/Union proves that his
dismissal from services w.e.f. 24-12-2008 is
illegal and unjustified?
4. Whether the Party II proves that the
Party I/Union has no locus standi to espouse
the dispute?
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 39
26TH DECEMBER, 2019
701
13. Among the said issues, the issue No. 1 and
2 have been treated as preliminary issues. Both the
parties i.e. the Workman as well as the Employer
led their evidence respectively and the matter was
fixed for order on the findings of the preliminary
issue No.1 and 2, after hearing the arguments of
both the parties. It is at this stage, Ld. Adv. Shri
Suhas Naik, appearing for the Workman as well as
Ld. Adv. Shri A. V. Nigalye, appearing for the
Employer orally submitted that they are trying to
settle the matter amicably, accordingly, Ld. Adv.
Shri Suhas Naik, appearing for the Workman as
well as Ld. Adv. Shri A. V. Nigalye, appearing for
the Employer alongwith the Workman as well as
the Manager of the Employer remained present on
18-11-2019 and submitted that the parties have
amicably settled the matter and filed terms of
consent at Exb. 14 and prayed for passing consent
award. The terms of settlement appearing in
Exb. 14 are reproduced hereunder:
a.
The Employer/Party II is hereby paying an
amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- (Rupees one lakh
twenty five thousand only) to the
Workman/Party I in full and final settlement
of the claim by Party I. The said amount is
paid by a demand draft dated 18-11-2019
drawn on Bank of India, Mapuca Branch
bearing No. 149705. The Workman/Party I
acknowledges the receipt of the same.
b.
The Workman/Party I hereby agrees and
declares that all his claims and demands
against Party II/Employer are hereby
conclusively settled on payment of the
aforesaid amounts and he has no further
claim or demand of whatsoever nature
against the Employer/Party II. Similarly, the
Party II/Employer shall have no claim or
demand against the Workman/Party I.
I have carefully perused the said terms of
settlement at Exb.14 signed by and between the
parties hereinabove. The said terms of settlement
are beneficial to both the parties. Hence, I
consented for the same. Since the dispute under
reference is settled between the parties, I hold
that the dispute under present reference does not
survive.
In view of the above, I proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
1.
It is held that the action of the management
of M/s. GKB Vision Limited, Pilerne Industrial
Estate, Pilerne, Bardez-Goa, in dismissing
from service its Workman, Shri Vishnu
Gawade, with effect from 24-12-2008, is legal
and justified?, does not survive.
2.
The Workman, Shri Vishnu Gawade, is not
entitled to any relief.
3.
No order as to costs.
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar),
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II.
________
Notification
No. 28/2/2019-LAB/Part-I/819
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
06-11-2019 in Ref. No. IT/106/07 is hereby
published as required under Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of
1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 10th December, 2019.
______
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND
LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Ref. No. IT/106/07
Ms. Baby Naik and 41 Others,
Rep. by the President,
Goa Trade and Commercial
Workers Union, 2nd Floor,
Velho’s Building,
Opp. Municipal Garden,
Panaji-Goa.
… Workmen/Party I
V/s
M/s Sigma Laboratories Ltd.,
6-7-8, Thivim Industrial Estate,
Thivim, Mapusa-Goa.
… Employer/Party II
Workmen/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri
Suhaas Naik.
Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri M.
S. Bandodkar.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 39
26TH DECEMBER, 2019
702
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 6th day of the month
of November, of the year 2019)
By Order dated 23-10-2007, bearing No. 28/49/
/2006-LAB/-1450, the Government of Goa in
exercise of powers conferred by Section 10(1)(d) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The
Act), has referred the following dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication.
“(a) Whether the action of the management of
M/s. Sigma Laboratories Limited, Thivim
Industrial Estate, Karaswada, Mapusa-
-Goa, in terminating the services of
forty-two workmen mentioned below, with
effect from 31-03-2005, is legal and justified?
Sr.
Name of the Workman
No.
1
2
1. Ms. Baby Naik.
2. Ms. Kamini Naik.
3. Ms. Seveirene Dias.
4. Mr. Ramchandra Churi.
5. Ms. Elizabeth D’Souza.
6. Ms. Uidika Parsekar.
7. Ms. Pratibha Dhargalkar.
8. Ms. Neelima Kasalkar.
9. Ms. Pratakta Govekar.
10. Mr. Gopichand Mahale.
11. Ms. Ramakant N. Parab.
12. Mr. Sandeep Redkar.
13. Mr. Bhushan Mayekar.
14. Mr. Rajendra Harmalkar.
15. Ms. Pratibha Parkar.
16. Ms. Sharad Harmalkar.
17. Ms. Laurian D. Carrasco.
18. Ms. Sita Mavlikar.
19. Ms. Nirmala Desai.
20 Ms. Sandhya Phadte.
21. Ms. Shila A. Haldankar.
22. Ms. Sandhya S.P. Gaonkar.
23. Ms. Reshma S. Vengurlekar.
24. Ms. Geetanjali G. Mayekar.
25. Ms. Pramila R. Gawande.
26. Mr. Chandrakant A. Salgaonkar.
27. Ms. Laxmi G. Gaonkar.
28. Mr. Shrikant B. Gawandi.
29. Mr. Sharad Salgaonkar.
30. Ms. Pratibha Parkar.
31. Ms. Mahalaxmi Shetye.
32. Ms. Sheela Satelkar.
33. Ms. Sulochana S. Malik.
34. Ms. Rekha N. Kerkar.
35. Ms. Geetali G. Khandekar.
36. Ms. Prafulla N. Chopdekar.
37. Ms. Siddhi Shetye.
38. Ms. Sangeeta Parab.
39. Mr. Prahlad S. Mandrekar.
40. Ms. Sangeeta M. Toraskar.
41. Ms. Marchelene Simages.
42. Ms. Suvarna Kalvalkar.
(2) If not, to what relief the workmen are
entitled?”
2. Upon receipt of the reference, IT/106/07 was
registered. Notices were issued to both the parties
under registered post, upon which both the parties
were served. Party I thereafter filed a Claim
statement at Exh. 5 and the Party II filed a Written
statement at Exh. 7.
3. In short, the case of the Party I is that the
Party II is engaged in manufacturing and supply of
pharmaceuticals products having its factory at
Thivim Industrial Estate, Thivim. The Party I are 42
permanent workmen employed at the factory
engaged in permanent and core operations. The
Managing Director of Party II on 31-3-2005 called
all the workmen in his cabin in presence of other
management staff and informed that they are
selling the factory to the other party and that they
want clearance of all the workmen before they
take over the factory and that all the workmen
must resign and in case they do not, their services
would be terminated without any compensation.
The Managing Director obtained the signatures of
all the workmen on the resignation letters under
threat, duress and forcibly handed over some
amount to them purported to be their final dues.
The Party I never voluntarily resigned from the
services and had no intention of resigning from
their services. The management has also not paid
them their correct legal dues. The Party I union
raised the dispute before the office of the Labour
Commissioner and the Party II came out with a
defence that they have signed a Memorandum of
settlement dated 31-03-2005. There is however no
mention as to under what provision the purported
Settlement dated 31-03-2005 had been entered into
and whether the workmen had given an authority
to the alleged union to sign the purported
settlement or whether it is registered or not with
the competent authority prescribed under the
statute. The purported Settlement dated 31-03-2005
is therefore illegal, unjustified and bad in law and
contracting out the statutory provisions of the
applicable law.
1
2
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 39
26TH DECEMBER, 2019
703
4. The Party I also claimed that the Party II has
blatantly violated Section 25-FFA, 25-FFF and
25-F of the Act and had used pressure tactics and
lured some of the workmen by giving them extra
benefits to sign the said purported settlement
which is totally one sided favouring the
management. The present case is an act of unfair
labour practice adopted by the employer to get rid
of the permanent workmen under the pretext of
signing the purported Memorandum of settlement
dated 31-03-2005 which is illegal, unjustified, bad
in law, unfair, one-sided and totally favouring the
management. The Party II after terminating the
services of the workmen restarted the
manufacturing operations at the place of its
establishment at Thivim and at present the factory
of the Party II is fully operational with recruitment
of new workers in place of Party I workmen. There
is no closure of the business activities of the Party
II at its factory. It was obligatory on the part of
Party II to send intimation letters to Party I workmen
asking them to report for work and preference in
employment ought to have been given by Party II
to the Party I workmen involved in the present
reference and hence the said action of the Party II
is illegal, unjustified and bad in law. The Party I
workmen are therefore entitled for reinstatement
with full back wages and continuity in service.
5. In the Written statement, the Party II has
claimed that at no point of time the company has
terminated the services of 42 workmen concerned
in the reference. The said employees have
voluntarily resigned from the employment of the
company and their resignations cannot be termed
as termination. The workmen concerned in the
reference after resignation voluntarily accepted all
the dues and nothing is payable to them. The Party
II signed a valid settlement with the workers after
they voluntarily resigned and severed their
relationship. The Party I union has no locus standi
to represent the workmen concerned in the
reference. All the workers have accepted the
benefits arising out of settlement signed with the
Union. The Party II after paying all the dues to the
workmen including ex-gratia closed its activities
at the said establishment. Only 42 workmen out of
74 workmen have raised the dispute only after
voluntarily resigning and accepting the benefits.
The entire reference is bad in law, not maintainable
and ought to the rejected in limine. The Party I is
therefore not entitled for any relief.
6. In the rejoinder at Exh. 9, the Party I has
denied the case set up by the Party II in the written
statement.
7. Issues that came to be framed at Exh. 12 are
as follows:
(1) Whether the Party I prove that the Party II
obtained their resignation letters of the
workmen under threat, duress, force and
coercion?
(2) Whether the Party I prove that the Party II
had forced the workmen to accept the
money?
(3) Whether the Party I proves that the
settlement dated 31-3-2005 is illegal?
(4) Whether the Party I proves that the factory
is in operation and Party II has employed
new workers?
(5) What relief? What order?
8. In the course of evidence, the Party I examined
Shri R. D. Mangueshkar as witness No. 1 and
produced on record a copy of unionization letter
dated 5-10-2005 sent by union to Party II and AD
slip along with a copy of resolution at Exh. 16 colly,
a copy of dispute raised by the Party I dated
2-3-2006 at Exh. 17, copies of notices dated
22-5-2006 & 2-5-2006 issued by the Asstt. Labour
Commissioner at Exh. 18 colly, a copy of dispute
dated 3-6-2006 raised by the Ex-workmen of the
Party II at Exh. 19, copies of minutes of proceedings
and the failure report at Exh. 20 colly, a copy of
letter dated 27-3-2007 addressed by the Union to
the Secretary (Labour) at Exh. 21 and a copy of
letter dated 23-4-2008 addressed by the union to
the Labour Commissioner at Exh. 22. The Party I
also examined Smt. Laurian Carrasco as witness
No. 2 and produced on record a copy of her
appointment letter dated 20-4-1885 issued by Adel
Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. at Exh. 28, a copy of her
resignation letter along with acceptance of
resignation letter dated 31-3-2005 and receipt of
payment at Exh. 29 colly, a copy of Service
certificate dated 21-4-2005 at Exh. 31, a copy of
settlement dated 31-3-2005 along with annexure
at Exh. 32 colly. The Party I also examined Shri
Govind Sirsat who produced on record a copy of
extract of Form 9 at Exh. 53 and a copy of details
of Provident Fund remittances by Party II at Exh.
54 colly. and Shri Rajendra Kambli @ Korajkar who
produced on record a copy of inspection report
dated 2-5-2018 along with statement at Exh. 58
colly and a copy of statement along with details of
employees at Exh. 59 colly.
9. On the other hand, the Party II examined Smt.
Lourdes D’Souza as witness No. 1 and produced on
record a copy of settlement dated 31-3-2005 along
with annexures at Exh. 36 colly, a copy of letter
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 39
26TH DECEMBER, 2019
704
dated 22-10-2005 by Party II to Party I at Exh. 37, a
copy of letter dated 12-1-2006 by Party II to ALC,
Panaji at Exh. 38, a copy of letter dated 3-11-2005
by Party II to ALC, Mapusa at Exh. 39, a copy of
letter dated 9-12-2005 by Party II to ALC, Panaji at
Exh. 40, a copy of minutes held before ALC dated
7-6-2006 at Exh. 41, a copy of failure report dated
18-7-2006 at Exh. 42 and the copies of resignation
letter, acceptance of resignation letter and final
settlement of dues of Ms. Vidhika Parsekar at
Exh. 43 colly and closed its case.
10. Heard arguments. Notes of Written
arguments came to be placed on record by Party I
as well as Party II.
11. I have gone through the records of the case
and have duly considered the arguments advanced.
My answers to the above issues are as follows:
Issue No. 1
…
In the Negative.
Issue No. 2
…
In the Negative.
Issue No. 3
…
In the Negative.
Issue No. 4
…
In the Negative.
Issue No. 5
…
As per final order.
REASONS
Issue Nos. 1, 2, and 3:
12. Learned Advocate Shri Suhaas Naik for the
Party I has submitted that the Managing Director
of the Party II called all the workmen in his cabin
and informed that they have decided to sell the
factory to the other party and all the workmen
must resign and go home and that they obtained
signatures of all the workmen on the resignation
letters under threat and duress and forcibly handed
over some amount purported to be their legal dues.
The workmen have never voluntarily resigned from
the services. The management has not paid the
workmen their legal dues including retrenchment
compensation, notice pay, gratuity or leave wages.
The Settlement dated 31-3-2005 is illegal,
unjustified and bad in law which amounts to
contracting out the statutory provisions of the law,
which states that the agreement is arising out of
the closure but in an event, provisions of Section
25-FFA, 25-FFF and 25-F of the Industrial Disputes
Act have not been complied with as they adopted
unfair labour practice to get rid of permanent
workmen under the pretext of signing
Memorandum of Settlement dated 31-3-2005 which
was one sided and totally favouring the
management. The forcible resignations of the
workmen amount to the termination of the
workmen from the services and therefore the
Party I workmen are entitled for the relief claimed
and in support thereof, he relied upon the cases of
(i) Maharashtra General Kamgar Union vs. Glass
Containers Pvt. Ltd., 1983 ILLJ 326 Bom;
(ii) Industrial Perfumes Ltd. vs. Industrial
Perfumes Workers, (1998) II LLJ 1177 Bom;
(iii) Aroor Carpet Factories, Private vs. K. N.
Henry and Ors, AIR 1964 Ker 162.
13. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar for
the Party II has submitted that the reference speaks
about the termination of services of 42 workmen
from 31-3-2005, although there were 74 workmen.
There is no evidence that the services of the
workmen have been terminated and in fact it is
not the case of the management that the factory
has been closed but it has offered VRS scheme to
all the workmen which was accepted by them vide
Settlement dated 31-3-2005. The documents
produced by the company clearly show that it was
a case of voluntary retirement and that the service
certificates have also been given to all the 74
workmen, including Party I which show the
workmen have left of their own accord. The
Memorandum of Settlement along with annexure
showing the list of workmen clearly indicate that
the workmen have received gratuity, leave salary
and ex-gratia after they tendered resignations and
accepted all the legal dues before arriving at the
settlement and in support thereof, he relied upon
the cases of (i) The Chairman/Director, National
Bureau of Plants Genetics Resources, New Delhi
& Another vs. Shobha M. Dhore & Others, 2013(5)
LLN 164 (Bom.); (ii) Raijibhai Bhikhabhai Parmar
& Ors. vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (Formerly
known as Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd.)
& Anr., 2016 LLR 673.
14. In fine, the substratum of controversy is
whether the Party II terminated the service of the
Party I workmen without complying the provisions
of the Act or whether the Party I workmen along
with other 32 workmen tendered their resignations
and accepted voluntary retirement scheme floated
by the company and thereby relinquished
employer-employee relationship.
15. The Party I have examined Shri R. D.
Mangueshkar, General Secretary of Goa Trade and
Commercial Workers’ Union who has filed affidavit
incorporating the statement of claim filed by the
Union. In the cross examination, he admitted that
the present dispute pertains to alleged illegal
termination of the 42 workmen, however he has
not produced any termination letters. There is
also no dispute that out of 74 workmen, only 42
have raised the dispute on 2-3-2006 when the
Settlement dated 31-3-2005 was signed by all the
workmen including Party I workmen. The Party I
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 39
26TH DECEMBER, 2019
705
also examined Shri Rajendra Kambli @ Korajkar,
Labour Inspector, Mapusa. He claimed that he
carried out inspection of Party II factory on 2-5-2018
and found that there were 107 direct workers and
68 workers employed through 5 contractors. Be
that as it may, the case of Party I workmen that it
was an illegal closure therefore falls flat.
16. The Party I have also examined, Ms. Laurian
Carrasco who has claimed that she was one of the
workpersons mentioned in the schedule of reference
and that the Managing Director called her and
other workers in his cabin and informed that they
are selling the company and that they must resign
and go home. She also claimed that the Managing
Director obtained signature on resignation letter
under threat and was forcibly handed over some
amount including her unpaid salary. She also stated
that her termination is illegal and there is no real
closure of the factory and that the factory is in
operation. In the cross examination, she admitted
that no letter terminating their services was issued
to them. She also stated that the company had
forcibly signed settlement dated 31-3-2005 with
the workers. She also admitted that she did not file
any Police complaint or any complaint before the
Labour Commissioner. She also admitted that after
signing the settlement, she along with other 74
workers received the money out of the said
settlement after submitting the resignation letters
and was paid 75 days compensation for each
completed year. She claimed that a cheque
amounting to Rs. 4,64,281/- was received by her
and that she never went to the factory after
31-3-2005. She claimed that she did not make any
efforts to return the said amount to the company.
She also admitted that she obtained service
certificate dated 21-4-2005 and that she signed the
settlement dated 31-3-2005 at Sr. No. 23 in the
annexure to the settlement. She admitted that in
the service certificate at Exh. 31, it was written
that she was leaving on her own accord, but
claimed that it was wrongly written. The above
evidence therefore clearly shows that she
alongwith Party I workmen have voluntarily
tendered their resignations after accepting VRS
scheme floated by the company.
17. The Party II examined its Manager,
Mrs. Lourdes D’Souza who claimed that the
employees have voluntary resigned from the
employment of the company and accepted VRS
scheme and all the legal dues after signing a valid
Settlement dated 31-3-2005 with the workers
thereby severing their relationship. There is
therefore no dispute surviving between the workers
and the company and that the present dispute has
been raised only after voluntarily resigning and
accepting the benefits. She claimed that the
undertaking of the Party II was permanently closed
as per Settlement dated 31-3-2005. In the cross
examination, she stated that the copies of
settlement were given to all the authorities which
was signed between the company and Sigma
Workers Union and that after prolonged discussion
between the employees and the Union, VRS scheme
was signed with 74 workmen. She denied the
suggestion that the Union had no authority to enter
into any kind of understanding or settlement with
the company on behalf of other workers and that
the settlement is not a valid settlement. She also
stated that they have calculated and paid to each
of the 74 workmen their gratuity amount payable
to individual workman and paid the cheques with
the details of calculation including gratuity and
that 75 days compensation includes gratuity and
other benefits.
18. Be that as it may, the Party I have not
disputed the Memorandum of settlement at
Exh. 32 colly entered into between all the workmen
and the management by which VRS scheme was
extended to them and accepted by all. A little
peep into the Memorandum of Settlement clearly
shows that the Union along with the workers and
the management after prolonged discussion agreed
and entered into the terms of settlement by which
all the workers tendered their resignations in
writing. The letter of acceptance of resignation
and receipt of full and final settlement of dues of
one of the workmen, Ms. Vidhika Parsekar at
Exh. 43 colly are pointer to that effect. The Party I
workmen have received the agreed amount as per
the said Memorandum of understanding at the rate
of 75 days of amount for each completed years of
service who were on the muster roll of the company
as on 31-3-2005 including leave encashment of their
privilege leave. The Annexure to the Settlement
clearly shows that all the workmen have signed
the annexure showing details of the calculation of
dues, which were paid to them. The service
certificate of Ms. Laurian Carrasco at Exh. 31 is
also indication of the fact that she alongwith others
have left the services on their own accord. None of
the above documents including the Settlement and
calculation of amount paid have been disputed by
Party I workmen, which clearly show that the
workmen have been paid gratuity, leave salary and
ex-gratia.
19. Needless to mention, the Party I have not
challenged the Memorandum of Settlement on the
ground that it was bad in law or entered into by
misrepresentation or fraud. The settlement has
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 39
26TH DECEMBER, 2019
706
been signed on 31-3-2005, resignations were also
tendered by all the workmen on 31-3-2005 and they
were accepted on the same day and the amounts
as per settlement were paid. There is nothing
produced on record that the Party I workmen
including other workmen were not paid as per the
settlement. The workmen have also withdrawn the
Provident Fund as shown in the Extract of Form-9
and the details of remittances produced by Shri
Govind Sirsat at Exh. 53 and 54 colly respectively.
He has stated that the workers have given the
reason for withdrawing the Provident fund as ‘Left’
on 31-3-2005. They therefore cannot challenge the
settlement once it is admitted by them that they
have accepted the VRS scheme. It is well settled
that if the workmen want to challenge the VRS
compensation received by them by raising an
industrial dispute, they will have to deposit the
amount received towards VRS as held by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raijibhai
Bhikhabhai Parmar & Ors., supra. The Party I
workmen have not deposited the amount of VRS
received by them and have challenged the VRS
scheme, which is not permissible and therefore,
the reference itself is not maintainable.
20. The case of Party I workmen as per the
schedule of reference is termination of services
with effect from 31-3-2005 on which date the
settlement was signed and that they have tendered
resignation letters, which were accepted by the
management. The only workperson, Laurian
examined by the Union failed to justify its case as
per statement of claim. The evidence of witness,
Shri R. D. Mangueshkar is irrelevant as he is neither
attended the conciliation proceedings nor he knows
the facts of the case. He is also not the employee
of the company. Admittedly, the Memorandum of
Settlement was signed on 31-3-2005 and the dispute
was raised on 02-03-2006 after a delay of 11 months
and no explanation is forthcoming as regards to
the said delay. The undisputed documents
produced by the management clearly show that
the workmen including Party I workmen have
accepted the VRS scheme floated by the company
along with the dues and have even collected the
amount from Provident Fund, wherein it is stated
that they have ‘left’ on their own. There is absolutely
no evidence on record that the services of Party I
workmen were terminated by Party II or that there
is a closure of the establishment by Party II on
31-30-2005. None of the documents produced by
Party I indicates that it is a closure. The failure
report dated 18-7-2006 at Exh. 20 colly shows that
the workmen were disputing VRS scheme but the
documents produced by the Party II clearly indicate
that the Party I have accepted VRS scheme by
submitting resignation letters and accepting the
settlement.
21. Needless to mention, the documents
including the Memorandum of settlement with
annexure, resignation letter, acceptance letter,
receipt and the service certificate clearly show
that lumpsum amounts have been paid to all the
workmen inclusive of gratuity. The Party I workmen
therefore failed to show that the settlement is one
sided, bad in law, illegal, unfair, unreasonable and
amounts to contracting out the statutory provisions
of law and that the management had used pressure
tactics and have lured the workmen by giving them
extra benefits and that it is an act of unfair labour
practice adopted by the employer to get rid of the
permanent workmen. Once it is established by the
management that the workmen have resigned from
the services which was accepted and the amounts
have been paid to the workmen without any
objection and that till date the resignation have
not been withdrawn nor the amount received
under VRS scheme is returned, it cannot be said
that the settlement is one sided or illegal, more
particularly when all the dues including ex-gratia
have been paid to the workmen concerned. It is
thus clear that the Party II have not terminated the
service of the Party I workmen, on the contrary, the
Party I workmen along with other 32 workmen have
tendered their resignations and accepted voluntary
retirement scheme. The submissions and the
reliance placed by learned Adv. Shri Suhaas Naik
on the above citations turn on their own facts and
hence not applicable to the case at hand. It is
therefore the Party I have failed to prove that the
Party II had obtained their resignation letters under
threat, duress, force and coercion and that they
were forced to accept the amount or that the
Settlement dated 31-3-2005 is illegal. Hence, the
above issues Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are answered in the
negative.
Issue No. 4:
22. It is the case of the Party I that the factory
is in operation and the Party II has employed new
workers. Shri R. D. Mangueshkar has not produced
on record any list of new employees who have
been employed by Party II after the settlement
dated 31-3-2005. Be that as it may, Shri Rajendra
Kamble has produced on record the report at
Exh. 58 colly of Party II company dated 2-5-2018
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 39
26TH DECEMBER, 2019
707
and found that the factory is in operation
alongwith workers. However, as Party I workmen
have tendered their resignations after accepting
VRS scheme, the above issue becomes redundant.
Hence, issue No. 4 is answered in the negative.
23. Pursuant to above discussions and the
Party I having failed to prove the issues cast on it,
I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) It is hereby held that the management of
M/s. Sigma Laboratories Limited, Thivim
Industrial Estate, Karaswada, Mapusa, Goa,
have not terminated the services of forty-two
workmen mentioned in the reference with
effect from 31-03-2005, on the contrary, the
Party I workmen along with other workmen
have voluntary resigned from services by
accepting their dues.
(ii) The Party I/Workmen are therefore not
entitled to any reliefs.
(iii) No order as to costs.
(iv) Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva)
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
———uuu———
Department of Personnel
__
Order
No. 15/2/2019-PER/3844
Read: 1) Order No. 15/2/2019-PER dated 11-11-2019.
2) Order No. 15/2/2019-PER dated 25-11-2019.
Pursuant to order read in the preamble, the
following Officers in the cadre of Block Development
Officer (Group “B” Gazetted) under the Government
of Goa are hereby deputed for on job training in
Directorate of Panchayats for two weeks w.e.f.
16-12-2019 to 27-12-2019.
1. Shri Siddesh Surya Kerkar.
2. Shri Ashwin alias Sadashiv Krishna Dessai.
3. Shri Paritosh Ulhas Fal Dessai.
4. Shri Gurudatta Pandurang Naik (OBC).
After completion of training, they shall report to
Personnel Department for further orders.
This issues with the approval of Competent
Authority.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 20th December, 2019.
———uuu———
Department of Public Health
__
Order
No. 7/23/87-I/PHD/2809
On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service
Commission as conveyed vide their letter No. COM/
/II/11/24(1)/2001/238 dated 06-11-2019, Government
is pleased to promote the following Junior
Anaesthetists to the post of Senior Anaesthetist
under the Directorate of Health Services, on regular
basis in the Level 11 of Pay Matrix [Rs. 15,600-
-39,100+Grade Pay Rs. 6,600/- in pre-revised] and
other allowances to be fixed as per rules with
immediate effect:
1. Dr. Manjiri M. Navelkar alias Parsekar.
2. Dr. Mansi Samir Bhakare.
The promotions are made against the vacancies
occurred due to the resignation of Dr. Betty Travasso
w.e.f. 01-5-2016 vide order No. 44/18/2006-I/PHD
dated 29-4-2016 and due to the retirement of
Dr. Pradip Shinkre, on attaining the age of
superannuation on 31-8-2019.
Consequent upon their promotion, the postings
are as under:
Sr.
Name of the doctor
Place of posting
No.
1. Dr. Manjiri M. Navelkar
Hospicio Hospital,
alias Parsekar
Margao (She shall
draw her salary
against the post of
Sr. Pathologist).
2. Dr. Mansi Samir Bhakare
Sub-District Hospital,
Ponda.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Swati Dalvi, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 18th December, 2019.
www.goaprintingpress.gov.in
Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,
Government Printing Press,
Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.
PRICE–Rs. 19.00
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—309/160–12/2019.